“[7.] … If any firm fails to provide the information required on [form N463] and in particular explain the reasons for urgency, the time at which the need for immediate consideration was first appreciated and the efforts made to notify the defendant, the court will require the attendance in open court of the solicitor from the firm who was responsible, together with his senior partner. It will list not only the name of the case, but the firm concerned. Non-compliance cannot be allowed to continue. [8.] That will not be the only consequence of failing to complete the requirements set out in the form. First, one consequence may be that, if the form is not completed, the judge may simply refuse to consider the application. Second, if reasons are not properly set out or do not explain why there has been a delay or the reasons are otherwise inadequate, the court may simply refuse to consider the application for that reason and that reason alone.”
“Wherever possible the court will want representations from the defendant before determining the application. In cases where interim relief is sought, the court will generally make an order allowing the defendant a short time to file written submissions before deciding the application, unless irreversible prejudice would be caused to the claimant in the meanwhile; alternatively, the judge may list the matter for a hearing on notice to the defendant (see paragraph 13.2 of this Guide for listing). In cases where an expedited substantive hearing is sought, the court may abridge time for service of the defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and request the defendant’s views on the order sought, to enable the court to take an early view on permission and any consequential case management directions.”
“[5.] As noted in our letter dated29 October 2020 , it would be open for the Secretary of State to take the view that the proposed claims have been rendered academic and that the Preaction Protocol had been concluded positively. However, in accordance with our duty to work collaboratively under the Preaction Protocol, our client stated she would provide a detailed response as soon as she was able. That response is set out below … [68.] Your letter asks that “all asylum seekers” are “immediately transferred” out of the sites. Neither you nor yourclients have standing to make such a request. Theoverwhelming majority of the residents at the sites have notintimated claims and, just because your clients wish to move toalternative accommodation, does not mean that any (let aloneall) of the other residents would wish to do so. Moreover, such a move would require the Secretary of State to identify hundreds of new beds, at no notice, and thus with no time to make the many preparations that are required in order to ensure an appropriate reception. You would be asking the Secretary of State to do so in the midst of a pandemic and during the imposition of further restrictions. The request is misconceived and is practically impossible.” (Emphasis added).
“Unless [the SSHD] confirms by return that she will act to release those in the [Penally] Camp as soon as she can make safe arrangements to do so and agree not to transfer anybody else there on or after the2 December 2020 , we will lodge this claim on behalf of [the sixth claimant] along with our existing claimants and seek an urgent case management hearing and interim relief”
“[16.] … all residents of Penally and your client(s) have no standing to challenge other people’s accommodation provision. Your firm simply cannot know what is in the best interests of those it does not represent, and this part of your letter suggests a potentially dangerous overreach.”
“How quickly do you require the application (Form N463) to be considered?”
“Please specify the nature and timeframe of consideration sought”
“[i]. A declaration that the [SSHD’s] decision to utilise Penally Camp as accommodation for asylum seekers and/or the decision to transfer these claimants to the said camp breached the public sector equality duty unders. 149 Equality Act 2010 and/or was irrational and/or unreasonable.”
“[1]. An order that pending determination of the claims, the SSHD: (i) undertake an urgent review of the vulnerability and health needs of those who remain at the Camp and, thereafter, transfer out of the Camp any person with a disability or with significant vulnerability or health needs, in accordance with the statement of policy and intended practice set out in the [SSHD’s] Equality Impact Assessment of September 2020. Section 2 p. 6 and section 4 p. 12 in particular; (ii) refrain from transferring any other person to the Camp in the meantime and pending resolution of these proceedings. [2]. The claimants also seek an interim declaration from the court that there is no lawful power to impose a curfew between 10pm and 10am or at all on those accommodated in the Penally Camp.”
“The claimants recognise that this matter must be dealt with at an inter partes oral hearing. Given the gravity and pressing nature of the issues and the number of people effected (sic), the claimant seeks a direction that the matter be put before a judge as soon as reasonably practicable and within 3 days. The court is requested to order a truncated timetable for the [SSHD] to file its acknowledgment of service and any response to the application for interim relief within 7-days of the order and that the matter should be listed for an oral hearing on the first available date, thereafter, and before11 December 2020 .”
“[1.] The application for expedition and urgent directions to be considered on the papers forthwith. [2.] The application for interim relief and further directions to be considered at an inter partes oral hearing to be listed first available date after 2December 2020 and before 10December 2020. [3.] The Defendant to serve the summary grounds of defence and any reply to the application for interim relief 7 days from the date of this order.”
“Further, the [SSHD] has real doubts as to the standing of these claimants to seek the urgent interim relief that they are seeking. First, the interim relief is academic insofar as it relates to them, given that they have already been transferred into alternative accommodation. Secondly the interim relief sought relates to residents of Penally who are not party to these proceedings, including those who have not even yet moved to Penally.”
“The Defendant has unusually filed submissions in reply to an ex parte application for which there is no procedural provision. Nevertheless, and in the interests of fairness and we hope, to assist the Judge, we are going to send a reply within the next hour, and we ask you not to send the file to the Judge until we have provided a response to these submissions of the Defendant.”
“The [SSHD] has filed submissions on the claimants’ application for expedition and case management, at the eleventh hour. There is no procedural provision for her to interpose in this way. In any event, the submissions filed are unnecessary: the Claimants are not seeking any substantive interlocutory relief by way of the application filed; rather they simply seek case management and directions and for an inter partes oral hearing to decide the question of interim relief. It is expressly accepted within the application filed by the claimants that the court will wish and need to hear from the [SSHD] when determining the question of interim relief. That is the proper venue at which the [SSHD] may make the submissions she seeks to prematurely ventilate now.”
“It is hopeless and to miss the point to argue, as the [SSHD] does, that there is no urgency in this case where the individual claimants are no longer accommodated at Penally Camp. First, these claimants bring this challenge on behalf of those still resident at Penally Camp …”
“[1.] The claimants’ claims relate to detention (pursuant to Immigration Act powers) at a former military camp at Penally in Wales. The claims were filed on26 November 2020 . By an application under the urgent application procedure the Claimants sought interim relief in the form of orders (a) requiring assessment of their health needs (and those of others at Penally Camp); (b) requiring their transfer from Penally Camp (and the transfer of others who are disabled or have specific health needs); (c) prohibiting the Secretary of State from transferring to Penally Camp any other person who is subject to immigration control; and (d) declaring that the Secretary of State has no power to impose a curfew requirement on those who live at Penally Camp. The claimants also requested an order for expedition of their claims. [2.] The claimants ought not to have made the applications for urgent consideration. None of the claimants is at Penally Camp. All bar the sixth claimant were transferred to other accommodation as long ago as29 October 2020 (see variously, the Statement of Facts and Grounds at §§37, 39, 41, 44, and 46). The sixth claimant left Penally Camp on18 November 2020 (see Grounds at §49). In the premises, there is no prospect that an application for interim relief will succeed, and no need at all for expedition of these claims. [3.] The claimants contend that they bring these claims “on behalf of” others who remain at Penally Camp. That contention is fallacious. Neither the claimants nor their legal representatives act on behalf of any other person who is presently accommodated at the camp. The judicial review procedure exists to resolve claims brought by specific claimants on matters affecting them, not to conduct general inquiries into matters which may be of public interest. That is a fortiori when it comes to applications for interim relief. The lawyers whom the claimants instruct have no means of knowing the instructions of others at Penally Camp. [4.] If any of the claimants’ claims survived their removal from Penally Camp, there is no reason why any now require expedition. [5.] The claimants’ applications under the urgent consideration procedure should be considered under the Hamid jurisdiction. The claimants (even the sixth claimant) had left Penally well before the application was made. Moreover, the form N463 made no mention of this. The “Reasons for Urgency” section simply read “see application for interim relief attached”
“took the view it would assist the judge not to truncate all the issues into the limited space provided on the form where important detail might be missed, and instead set it out in relative fullness in a separate document (the interim relief grounds) … that is why in the box [for section 1] we referred the reading judge to the attached “Application for Interim Relief and Expedition”, writing in [the box for section 1] “see application for interim relief”…”
“Counsel wish to make it clear that responsibility for this matter cannot be properly attributed to Mr Hossain alone. The preparation of the claim was a collective endeavour for which counsel, including leading counsel must and do take joint responsibility”
“An injunction is an order by a court to a party to proceedings requiring him to do or to refrain from doing a particular act. First, on any analysis, it is appropriate that the persons intended to be the beneficiaries of any order are clearly identified and that the terms of any injunction are clear as to what the defendant is and is not required to do. It would not, generally, seem desirable to make orders where the beneficiaries or the terms are unclear, or where those issues would need to be subject of argument, nor would that appear fair to the defendant who is required to comply with the order. Further, lack of clarity could create difficulties over the enforcement of orders. Breach of an order can be made the subject of application for contempt in certain circumstances: see Mohammad v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2021] EWHC 240 at paragraph 26.”